Context: The 2020 residency recruitment season was the first to be completely virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior research has found applicants make their decisions based on many factors, several of which may be difficult to assess virtually; including location, resident community, faculty mentorship, and prior personal experience of the program (sub-internships/acting internships). However, virtual interviews may also increase accessibility for non-traditional and socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and allow rural programs to interview more candidates. Objective: To characterize how applicants evaluated programs in the 2020 NRMP match. Study Design: Mixed-methods survey with open-ended questions. Setting or Dataset: Three large urban medical schools in Chicago. Population studied: Fourth-year medical students who participated in the 2020 NRMP match, surveyed after rank list submission and prior to Match Day. Instrument: Online RedCAP survey. Outcome Measures: Importance ratings of key factors in applicant decision making. Content analysis of open-ended questions to characterize how applicants evaluated each factor. Results: The response rate was 56% [n = 271; 50.9% female; 25.9% underrepresented minority in medicine (URM)]. Respondents identified goodness of fit, geographic location, reputation of program, fellowship training opportunities, and work/life balance as the top five most important factors in evaluating programs. Those identifying as URM were significantly more likely to cite diversity at location or institution as an important factor (38.6% of URM vs 5.0% of non-URM, p < 0.001); a similar pattern was seen for female participants (18.8% of females, p = 0.02). Preliminary coding of qualitative responses reveals that applicants assessed goodness of fit based on the virtual interview day experience, vibe/gut feeling, and interactions with current residents and faculty. Expected Outcomes: Participants in the virtual match were similar to those of prior in-person recruitment cycles in key factors used to compare residency programs; female and URM applicants were more likely to cite diversity as a key factor. Ongoing analysis of qualitative responses will identify common themes in how participants evaluated these factors.